plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?

George wrote:
"J. Taylor" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:29:56 -0400, "George"
wrote:



This is not about me, Mr. T. It is about the EE claim that the continents
were joined together in the Pacific 200 million years ago, and the utter
lack of evidence for that claim. Do try to focus.

That's just because your sandbagged consensus doesn't have a clue,
despite being spoon fed:-
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
NEW YEAR PREZZIE
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
....for the strugglers at the National Science Foundation Workshop
Stanford
http://tinyurl.com/eanpv

Just about another year down and they still have _*NO*_*CLUE*_ despite
being given them on a plate:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/matahari.html

You can see the problem. ( George doesn't understand this. He thinks
real scientists are about science, and enquiry, and all that lofty
****. He doesn't understand the debilitation when it all collapses in
an orgasmic heap.) Glory for five minutes, ....then what? Real
scientists understand this problem all to well, because theirs is a
career, not some pee-poddling point-and-click pastime from 'books' to
show how much you think others should know..